3 ms·

> It has never been like this, why is it like this now? Imagine you have a hiring panel of 20 people, and you are a member of it. It's obvious that the whole p

> It has never been like this, why is it like this now? Imagine you have a hiring panel of 20 people, and you are a member of it. It's obvious that the whole process is completely broken. What's your correct move? If you improve the hiring process, the size of the hiring panel will be reduced from 20 people to 5, which means there's 75% chance you'll be fired. Congratulations, you played yourself. Instead, the correct move is to keep making the hiring process as bad as possible, so that the company expands the hiring panel even further, which lowers the risk of you being fired. When you take a look at why soviet economy failed, the biggest issue was that the system actually rewarded inefficient institutions, allocating to them more resources, while punishing efficient institutions. Exactly the same problems exist within a single capitalist company. On top of that, the employment has shifted from small business to large corporations. The best example is food delivery - 10 years ago you would've been hired directly by the restaurant, which means that either restaurants would freely compete for workers or workers would compete for restaurants, depending on the market. But nowadays either everyone deals with whatever bullshit UberEats pulls off or you're out of the game.

danaris 8mo ago
> If you improve the hiring process, the size of the hiring panel will be reduced from 20 people to 5, which means there's 75% chance you'll be fired. Wait, what? That only makes sense if the hiring panel is made up exclusively of people whose job is nothing but hiring. That has never been the case anywhere I have worked or seen.
- anal_reactor 8mo ago
  That's a simplified example I used to explain the point. Of course you rarely have people whose job is nothing but hiring, but often you have people whose all responsibilities revolve around inefficient processes, and making these processes efficient threatens their jobs. TurboTax is a great example of this - the entire purpose of their existence is to make sure that filling taxes is as complicated as possible so that people keep using their services. In other countries simpler and cheaper tax systems are used, but if such a system was adopted in the US, the entire business model of TurboTax would immediately collapse, so they will fight tooth and nail against any improvement.

danaris 8mo ago

> If you improve the hiring process, the size of the hiring panel will be reduced from 20 people to 5, which means there's 75% chance you'll be fired. Wait, what? That only makes sense if the hiring panel is made up exclusively of people whose job is nothing but hiring. That has never been the case anywhere I have worked or seen.

anal_reactor 8mo ago
That's a simplified example I used to explain the point. Of course you rarely have people whose job is nothing but hiring, but often you have people whose all responsibilities revolve around inefficient processes, and making these processes efficient threatens their jobs. TurboTax is a great example of this - the entire purpose of their existence is to make sure that filling taxes is as complicated as possible so that people keep using their services. In other countries simpler and cheaper tax systems are used, but if such a system was adopted in the US, the entire business model of TurboTax would immediately collapse, so they will fight tooth and nail against any improvement.